I have to run out so I don't have time for a full dissertation but I will start with this: I wish they would have re-thought the whole idea of subclasses and made them much more fluid, working between multiple classes. An example is something like the Assassin: that is something that many characters can be and different classes could benefit from in different ways.
I do like this idea. Subclasses that can be taken by any, or at least more than one class. An duelist based on a fighter vs one based on a rogue. It would allow for different flavors of similar concepts. The Rogue could be your typical dexterous fencer. Perhaps even allow for the adoption of multiple sub-classes. The fighter early on chose between unarmored, brawler type fighting, or heavily armored knightly fighting. Then when they take on the duelist subclass, the former is a wrestler/grappler, while the latter is a mounted lancer/jouster. They're all very different, but all excel in their particular style of single combat.
Honestly? 6E. I don't have a
comprehensive list of what I'd like to see, but a few things to throw out there as possibilities:
- More precise language used in the rules. "Rulings, not rules" is a nice idea, but where you have rules, they should be easily spotted and understood. A tag system wouldn't go amiss.
- 10 level standard. It's the range most people play in, so it should be the range the main design of the game revolves around. 11-20 should still exist, but it shouldn't take until level 5 or higher for classes to start feeling like they are coming into their own.
- Deemphasize ability score bonuses. Bring back B/X ability score scaling. As much as I prefer rolling, I'd say keep the standard array with Tasha's style bonus points separated from race. No ASIs for leveling.
- Reemphasize ability scores. Bring back ability scores checks as the base mechanic for getting things outside of combat done. It lets ability scores matter without having to be a primary factor in combat rolls like 3E+ inflated ability score bonus do.
- Races as feats. More specifically, you choose race as normal, but they have no mechanical weight on their own. Instead, you get racial abilities bundled up into feats with, say, 1 major and 1 minor ability each. Multiple feats for each race, so not every dwarf has to be exactly the same. Each feat can be designated as [innate] or [cultural]. Taking the former means you are at least part descended from that race, while taking the latter means you were raised among them. Suggestion that 2 races can be taken from at most to avoid people trying to powergame a "fairy/orc/dwarf/demon that was raised among elves" hybrid. More feats that can be gained later for those that want to be the elfiest elf that ever elfed.
- Multiclass as feats. Basically, my stance is that the more open your progression system, the more likely you'll run into winners and losers of progression. Combinations that don't synergize at all, and those that synergize so well, they become nearly ubiquitous. With open multiclassing, the benefit is often immediate while the cost is deferred (often to a level you were never going to get to anyway). Making multiclass a feat means that the class you start with is your class, and taking on abilities from other classes comes at the expense of other abilities you could have right now. Personally, I think this is a better system.
There's other ideas I have, but that's more or less the core of what I'd like to see in a new edition (which I'd rather have seen than a lukewarm refresh).
I've only been kind of following it, but the Dungeon Coach's DC20 looks interesting and might intrigue you. I also want a lot of these things.
Number 2 for certain. I feel like we get a lot of dead levels in the current 1-20 scale. If we trim that to 10, or 12 with better fleshed out levels, you could emphasize that leveling should perhaps be a little slower and the progression would feel better for it. Make a supplemental high level play book later covering character options from 10/12+
For 3 and 4 I'm more in the camp of just do away with ability scores and use only the bonus.
5 and 6 are where I think you might like what DC20 is working towards. It looks pretty promising (Though I should say I haven't seen any of the updates in the last 2 months or so)
Thing is, at this point I'd love a 6e.
But I'm 100% sure that they would make every single part of the game, without fail, something I hate. They've already stated they want less classes, while I want more.
So for now at least, I'm going to keep clinging onto 5e as long as possible.
I'm also in the camp that I'd prefer a whole new edition. The nice thing is that if I did hate 6e, I could always go back to playing 5e.
I'm kind of on board with the less classes thing. I scoffed at it initially, but I like the idea of the class just kind of being your core characteristics. The Strong Martial, the Dexterous Specialist, the Intelligent Mage, or the Wise Sage hitting on the four major archetypes (Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Priest) and then have an abundance of subclasses for each of these to latch onto.
A few people have touched on changing the way resting works, but I'd really like to see the whole combat/rest/recovery loop re-worked. It's become seemingly apparent that most tables don't engage in 4-8 combat encounters per session/adventuring day. It seems 1-3 is much more common. I'd like to see a rebalance with that in mind.